Author
Topic: Semi-Official 7.x Suggestion Thread (Read 40782 times)

After playing around with boarding I noticed couple of illogicalities with it. First is that capturing a vessel doesn't give class design info on Alien Intel screen. If you're in possession of an alien craft I think one can get all that info, maybe after scrapping it. Second is that the remaining crew of an alien vessel transforms into your own population instead of alien POWs. I'd like to see the alien crew as POWs and marines capturing the vessel being tied to it until it gets to home base/fleet.

Kinda feels like the existing suggestions threads ought to be bulldozered in favor of a C# suggestions thread. A lot of the early posts in this arn't taking into account C# changes... and God help the previous thread's suggestions, even though its still stickied xD

Cargo Handling Systems Rework:

I've long felt Cargo Handling Systems are a bit of a sideshow. Most extrasolar colonies are far enough away that even maximum cargo handling times of 10 days make only a small difference. For intrasolar traffic, even 1-2 of these relatively cheap systems is sufficient. CHS do matter for transferring troops between troop bays and dropships - but cryo drop bays have rendered that awkward procedure somewhat antiquated. Additionally, Spaceports are increasing in importance with the changes to refueling in C#, and are more likely to be present. Mostly I use CHS to round out tonnages to aesthetically pleasing numbers.

My suggestion is to drastically increase the size and cost of CHS and drastically increase the penalties of not having them. A sample number would be Size 100 CHS and 100 day standard unload time. (For context, the existing CHS is size 2, a Standard Cargo Hold is size 500, and the standard unload time is ~10 days. I'm unsure of the formula, but a ship with a 1:1 cargo to CHS ratio has 80% less unload time and 2:1 gives it 90% less. ) A ship with CHS would be considerably bulkier and less fuel efficient than those without, but conversely the equipment is much more necessary for rough colonies.

Thus, there are incentives for larger variety in commercial ship design. Bulk transportation between colonies with 1 spaceport can be best accomplished by 1-standard-cargo-hold ships without CHS - they would be the most space and fuel efficient by far. Larger CHS-less freighters would require additional spaceports to load and unload with the same efficiency. Rough-country transports with 1 or more CHS would be much more efficient transporting to unimproved colonies, or to colonies with less spaceports for shorter trips. Colony ships would be pressured by the same design constraints. I can also see a potential role for a "Pioneer transport" - a combination colony/cargo ship that mounts 1-2 CHS specifically for opening new worlds in a specially-designed package, while follow-on traffic is handled by high efficiency ships once a spaceport is built.

As for troops, I would suggest deprecating CHS for troop loading to combat pods from starships. There's already a pretty huge logistics overhead in shipping both dropships and troops to an invasion mission, and combat cryo does exist. CHS could still accelerate the initial loading of troops to transports or to combat cryo. And of course non-combat unloading could still use it. You couldn't really 'get around it' with combat drop vessels since those would cost a bundle more than just slapping on a CHS.

Currently, until you research and build brigade and division HQs, you suffer a bleed of your best ground combat commanders. The guys with good scores get promoted beyond base rank, but there's no higher-authority slots to put them into, so eventually they get fired for not getting assignments.

Currently, until you research and build brigade and division HQs, you suffer a bleed of your best ground combat commanders. The guys with good scores get promoted beyond base rank, but there's no higher-authority slots to put them into, so eventually they get fired for not getting assignments.

Also, I'd like to have "specialization" bonus types for ground commanders, rather than just ground combat and training. Something more specific would be great, like space-based combat (for boarding), siege warfare (vs PDCs or defending PDCs), urban warfare (attacking or defending heavily populated/industrialized planets), guerrilla warfare (attacking or defending mostly uncolonized/untame planets) and such... the latter two could be based on the new population caps thus they sort of fit with C# Aurora.

Something small for a change. Could jump engines get a heading in the list of ship components at Class design screen so that they are clearly divided from normal engines? I have together over 20 active designs of them and this would help navigating that long list.

Something small for a change. Could jump engines get a heading in the list of ship components at Class design screen so that they are clearly divided from normal engines? I have together over 20 active designs of them and this would help navigating that long list.

Don't see how that would fit. We have sections for Hull, Engines, Beam weapons, Missiles, Strike Groups, and Sensors. Why would we separate the engine grouping into two separate groups?

Logged

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Don't see how that would fit. We have sections for Hull, Engines, Beam weapons, Missiles, Strike Groups, and Sensors. Why would we separate the engine grouping into two separate groups?

... would fit?? That list goes for several screens... currently like 7 for me with 13 headings. Shields and electronic warfare seems grouped together but even Magazines have their separate section.

I am talking about the main list Available component in the tab Design view.Do you mean some other section of Class design screen maybe? Or could be you not using "Reduced height windows" the source of this confusion?

Also, as now here are grouped engines and jump engines together it looks quite weird when you select multiple engines and are told "just one engine" but engine+jump engine (aka 2 selections from Engines section) are fine.

Could closing pop-ups via X in the corner mean "NO" instead of "YES"?Multiple times I misclicked and ordered refitting of my tanker (because his name is from A) to some other class. I am then asked if really want it with 400%+ refit price. I close the window via X, meaning "don't do it" but game takes it as "do it".

"X" treated as a default answer and default answer being "do nothing" would make more sense to me. See behaviour of "are you sure you want ot delete this file?".

Have Fire Control systems be detectable when used against your ships. This could be a simple omni-directional system that simply tells if a FC is active or hitting your ship, or a more advanced system which determines which ship is targeting and which ship is being painted.

Also, have that information be made available in the intelligence tab.

Could _horizontal_ scrollbars be added to few areas with lists of components? The screen is divided there into several smaller panes and the important information is often in the end of row (differentiating code, hits left, repair value):

Population and production->Industry->Ship component stockpile

Individual unit details->Damage control->Damage allocation chart

Individual unit details->Damage control->Damaged systems

Repair value can be found as twice the cost in Class design but in overall this issue currently wrecks use of name of manufacturer before the name and code of ship component a bit. Yes, I am using 1280x800 laptop with Reduced Height Windows but the issue of just a bit too long names for these component lists is surely on other displays too. And trying to use short names of components just so they can fit in these places sounds like a less interesting option.